United States of America v. Lamon Lee Christensen

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAMON LEE CHRISTENSEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50440
D.C. No. 2:88-cr-00668-MLR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Lamon Lee Christensen appeals from the eight-month sentence imposed
following revocation of the supervised release term he was serving following a
jury-trial conviction for armed bank robbery and use of a firearm during and in
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AK/Research 08-50440 2
relation to a crime of violence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Christensen contends that the district court erred by imposing consecutive
three-year and two-year terms of supervised release as part of the sentence on the
underlying conviction. As a result, he argues that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release because his supervision expired upon
completion of the initial three-year term, which occurred prior to the conduct
resulting in the revocation of supervised release. We decline to reach the merits of
this argument because an appeal challenging a revocation proceeding is not the
proper avenue through which to attack the validity of the original sentence. See
United States v. Gerace, 997 F.2d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --